On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 23:23:16 -0300 Franklin PIAT wrote:
> Hello,
Hi!
>
> The wikipedia page "Creative_Commons_licenses"[1] states :
[...]
> However, BrunoKleinert has added CC-SA 3.0 to the DFSG wiki page.
>
> I assume that one one the page is outdated or wrong (probably the
> wikipedia page).
The full wikipedia section about Debian criticism about Creative
Commons tells more than what you quoted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_licenses#Debian
In summary, it states that the Debian Project thinks that CC-by fails
to meet the DFSG [which is true, at least up to v2.5 licenses], that
other CC licenses are more restrictive [which is also true] and thus a
fortiori considered non-free. It also states that there have been some
efforts to fix the freeness issues in v3.0 licenses [also true] and
that we don't know yet if v3.0 licenses will be deemed acceptable.
The last part is the possibly outdated one.
CC-v3.0 licenses have been released and analysed on debian-legal.
My own personal conclusion is that some issues are still present and
thus CC-v3.0 licenses still fail to meet the DFSG and should be
considered as unacceptable for Debian (main).
However other people (including, apparently, ftp-masters) disagree with
me and seem to consider CC-by-v3.0 and CC-by-sa-v3.0 licenses as
acceptable for Debian (main).
Taking into account that ftp-masters are the real decision makers
regarding what can or cannot enter the Debian archive, I think that
this means the Debian Project (unfortunately) accepts the above two
licenses as DFSG-compliant.
There are already some CC-v3.0 licensed works in main.
On the other hand, there are also CC-v2.x and even CC-v1.0 licensed
works in main (possibly allowed in by mistake or overlook).
Finally, please note that, when I asked ftp-masters to explain the
rationale behind their conclusions, I got no answer at all, which is
really disappointing.
See
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/09/msg00126.htmlhttp://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2007/09/msg00076.html
for further details and pointers to more in-depth analyses.
I hope this clarifies the (non trivial) status of CC-v3.0 licenses.
My usual (and possibly superfluous) disclaimers are: IANAL, TINLA,
IANADD, TINASOTODP.
[...]
> P.S. Please CC me, I'm not on the list.
Done.
--
http://frx.netsons.org/doc/index.html#nanodocs
The nano-document series is here!
..................................................... Francesco Poli .
GnuPG key fpr == C979 F34B 27CE 5CD8 DC12 31B5 78F4 279B DD6D FCF4